Elevated stress impairs the accuracy of eyewitness memory but not the confidence–accuracy relationship.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathy Pezdek ◽  
Erica Abed ◽  
Anne Cormia
Keyword(s):  
Eyewitness Memory ◽  
Accuracy Relationship

Confidence and accuracy of eyewitness memory for target faces at different ages

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher D. Kimbrough ◽  
Brian H. Bornstein ◽  
Heather Bryden
Keyword(s):  
Eyewitness Memory ◽  
Different Ages

Do Sequential Lineups Impair Discriminability?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Philip Kaesler ◽  
John C Dunn ◽  
Keith Ransom ◽  
Carolyn Semmler
Keyword(s):  
Human Behavior ◽  
Feature Detection ◽  
Eyewitness Memory ◽  
Simultaneous Presentation ◽  
Diagnostic Feature ◽  
Sequential Presentation ◽  
Sequential Lineups ◽  
Measurement Models ◽  
Sequential Lineup ◽  
Lineup Procedures

The debate regarding the best way to test and measure eyewitness memory has dominated the eyewitness literature for more than thirty years. We argue that to resolve this debate requires the development and application of appropriate measurement models. In this study we develop models of simultaneous and sequential lineup presentations and use these to compare the procedures in terms of discriminability and response bias. We tested a key prediction of the diagnostic feature detection hypothesis that discriminability should be greater for simultaneous than sequential lineups. We fit the models to the corpus of studies originally described by Palmer and Brewer (2012, Law and Human Behavior, 36(3), 247-255) and to data from a new experiment. The results of both investigations showed that discriminability did not differ between the two procedures, while responses were more conservative for sequential presentation compared to simultaneous presentation. We conclude that the two procedures do not differ in the efficiency with which they allow eyewitness memory to be expressed. We discuss the implications of this for the diagnostic feature detection hypothesis and other sequential lineup procedures used in current jurisdictions.

scholarly journals Eyewitness identification performance is not affected by time-of-day optimality

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergii Yaremenko ◽  
Melanie Sauerland ◽  
Lorraine Hope
Keyword(s):  
Eyewitness Identification ◽  
Time Of Day ◽  
Decision Time ◽  
Identification Accuracy ◽  
Optimal Time ◽  
Identification Performance ◽  
Accurate Identification ◽  
Facial Stimuli ◽  
Time Accuracy ◽  
Accuracy Relationship

AbstractThe circadian rhythm regulates arousal levels throughout the day and determines optimal periods for engaging in mental activities. Individuals differ in the time of day at which they reach their peak: Morning-type individuals are at their best in the morning and evening types perform better in the evening. Performance in recall and recognition of non-facial stimuli is generally superior at an individual’s circadian peak. In two studies (Ns = 103 and 324), we tested the effect of time-of-testing optimality on eyewitness identification performance. Morning- and evening-type participants viewed stimulus films depicting staged crimes and made identification decisions from target-present and target-absent lineups either at their optimal or non-optimal time-of-day. We expected that participants would make more accurate identification decisions and that the confidence-accuracy and decision time-accuracy relationships would be stronger at optimal compared to non-optimal time of day. In Experiment 1, identification accuracy was unexpectedly superior at non-optimal compared to optimal time of day in target-present lineups. In Experiment 2, identification accuracy did not differ between the optimal and non-optimal time of day. Contrary to our expectations, confidence-accuracy relationship was generally stronger at non-optimal compared to optimal time of day. In line with our predictions, non-optimal testing eliminated decision-time-accuracy relationship in Experiment 1.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document